1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to animal husbandry (119) and in particular to a protective hoof coating and a trimming method to prevent hoof damage.
2. The Description of Prior Art
The attempted prevention of damage to livestock hooves dates back at least 5,000 years. Any domesticated animal used for work had to remain sound to be useful. More than anything, foot lameness was the limiting factor on how much work could be done by oxen, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, etc. When traveling, the distance covered was directly impacted by the limitation of the draft animals' feet. Prevention of foot soreness was a very practical endeavor and livelihoods, sometimes survival, depended on the results. Someone who did a better job of protecting their animals' feet from damage had an economical advantage over others.
The ancient Egyptians and others made pads of woven grass and reeds or made leather boots and strapped them on the feet of their camels and horses to limit wear. Generally, conditioning of the hooves remained adequate until the fourth century. Extensive research has shown a correlation between an invention of war and the necessary invention of more serious foot protection. It was around 331 B.C. that the first use of caltrops was documented. Caltrops were small star shaped metal objects that, when strewn on a battle field, always landed with a point up. This proved lethal to horses, oxen, camels, elephants or men. It punctured the sole and caused immediate foot damage and lameness and was often the deciding factor on winning the battle. It was around that time that the Greeks, Romans and Celts began metal hoof protection. The “hipposandal” protected the entire sole and was first bronze then later iron strapped on the hoof with leather thongs. Typically, this was only used in circumstances that required such extreme sole protection. The first evidence of iron shoes for horses, oxen and goats that were fastened with nails can be traced to the 5th or 6th century and attributed to Celtic blacksmiths. Samples of these first shoes were wide and covered almost the entire sole as befitted the need for protection against caltrops.
It was later that the development of horseshoes took a wrong direction. Previously, hoof protection for horses covered the entire bottom of the hoof and allowed the sole, hoof wall and frog to all be ground-bearing surface. While metal shoes for oxen and goats continued to support the entire foot, horseshoes developed into the form we see today where only the hoof wall is supported. Suspending the sole of a horse has caused innumerable problems by putting too much weight on the hoof wall and has led to numerous inventions to repair the damaged hoof wall.
The split hoof clamp described by Wiestner (U.S. Pat. No. 381,868) objects to the rigidity of previous inventions which interferes with horses and cattle hooves' natural expansion, which horseshoes also do. Wiestner does not address the cause of the hoof crack.
Bane (U.S. Pat. No. 3,118,449) describes patching a quarter crack by removing the healthy hoof wall material behind the crack and nailing on a shoe that has been shortened so as to not put pressure on the damaged area of the hoof. Bane says that race horses have weak hooves and are prone to hoof wall cracks and “seedy toe” (which I will address later). These can become infected and cause more damage if not treated with antibiotics by a veterinarian. This process is still suspending the sole by use of a horseshoe which puts excessive stress on the hoof wall.
Firth, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,682,179) describes a flexible mesh patch for hoof wall cracks used in conjunction with a urethane resin. Firth says that the resin should be flexible to match the hoof's elasticity. Although not claimed, Firth also describes the use of the resin over the entire dorsal surface of the hoof to protect against brittleness from moisture loss or to rebuild seriously damaged hooves. A urethane resin would not be tough enough to protect the hoof, nor rigid enough to aid in supporting the hoof wall without the use of the other hoof structures. Firth does not address the root cause of the crack.
Spencer (U.S. Pat. No. 4,182,340) describes threading over a hoof crack and filling it with adhesive material. The drawings show a horseshoe, the adhesive requires that one can nail through it, and there is no mention of any type of trimming to structurally remediate the crack.
Stovall (U.S. Pat. No. 5,681,350) describes a rigid and permeable prosthesis for when a hoof wall is debrided. Stovall states that, “the hoof wall is the most important weight-bearing structure of the foot”. Research has shown that the sole and frog are the more important weight-bearing structures of the hoof, as written in “Physiological Trimming for a Healthy Equine Foot”, Dr. Robert Bowker, VMD, PhD in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, July 2003. Stovall also states, “Anatomically, the hoof wall is analogous to the claws of a cat or the toe nails of man”. That would appear to make the horse the only domestic animal we force to walk on its toenails, which is not structurally sound.
Fryer (U.S. Pat. No. 6,231,972), my previous invention, describes an adhesive used as a protective hoof coating. However, the coating is described as being used primarily in place of a horseshoe and used only to protect the ground contacting hoof wall surface. There is little mention of protecting the other ground contacting surfaces of the sole and frog. Also, the trim method therein is described as dependent on the endeavor the horse is to be used for rather than the horse's natural conformation as the present invention describes.